pvxfandomcom-20200214-history
Category talk:Great working CM builds
Missing Professions I find it really odd that there are no "Great" rated build for Paragons, Ritualists or Warriors under Competitive Missions. Surely there's some builds for these that would do great in CM? Heck, I mean with the number of allies around just about any Paragon build would be fabulous to have around. Reithan 23:38, 1 October 2007 (CEST) it's not that they are bad. it's just that there are better proffesions/builds. oh and you need shouts who affect allies and not partymembers to maximize the effect. 20:18, December 8, 2009 (UTC) FA? arent there any builds for fort espenwood?Illoyon 18:54, 24 January 2009 (EST) :There's not really any builds run solely in Aspenwood anymore. - 19:05, 24 January 2009 (EST) So I was in JQ this morning, and when I tried to suggest that a warrior who was playing a decent build reroll for JQ, he told me to GTFO because it's on pvx. Maybe we should seperate the two sections? would take maybe half an hour, and would possibly improve the quality of play in both areas. You can't make the idiots there smarter, but you most certainly can improve their resources, which will help some. Can do most of this myself, but mainpage and probably the great pages are most likely protted. ALSO: Panic, yes there are quite a few things that people tend to bring only to FA, or at least versions of builds for other things with special skills in them for FA. Bad soles 16:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC) :Agreed, split into JQ and FA, although FA may be slightly lonely tbh.---- The Liger is looking for a HA guild 16:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC) ::FA wont be too lonely. With the Zquests, people will do it....once every 2 weeks I think? 16:32, 4 June 2009 :::The thing is - JQ and FA are both CMs by definition. We don't have Vanquishing and Mission sections in PvE for a reason. ··· Danny Does 17:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC) ::::True, but then again the builds for vanqing and misssions tend to be very similar, if not Identical. If it blows through missions, it probably will work for vanqing, and vise-versa. Bad soles 17:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC) :::::And in most cases, if it works for FA or JQ, it'll work for the alternate as well. RoJ and Necro bombers are quite sensual on the luxon side. ··· Danny Does 17:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC) ::::::stupid argument. They got similarities but are different enough to justify a split. For example, Warrriors are much better in FA than in JQ. Godbox 17:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC) :::::::And sacbombing isn't the best idea in FA, but good in JQ. 17:41, 4 June 2009 ::::::::I really want a different section for SC's in PvE then. They're much different than other builds. ··· Danny Does 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Or we could make columns or something similar within the CM page, which probably would require less effort. Bad soles 17:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC) :Why? It'd be a hundred times better to split it up, and regarding getting SCs I don't see any problem :/ Godbox 18:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC) ::Still think splitting em up would be a good idea....I know danny disagrees, other opinions? My Soles Are 15:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC) :::I agree. i think split because it's really anoying because there are quite a few things different between jq and fa. in jq it's cap, protect the carriers and kill the enemy carriers. in fa the luxons need to blast trough the doors and protect turtles in time. kurzicks need to protect and at the same time kill turtles, cap shrines and run amber. 20:18, December 8, 2009 (UTC) ::::I agree, but we need more than just the FA/JQ split. We have some builds that are designed to work on only the Kurzick or Luxon side. So we would either want to split the builds 4 ways, or, like the "Requires-Cons" tag, we could create tags for JQ, FA, Kurzick, and Luxon.--War_Pig5 05:07, March 24, 2010 (UTC)